Video: Part 2 - Garrett ATX on Small Gold Nuggets :super:

[jerrym1]

According to this technique, you would have to keep swinging the coil on the ground continuously because should you lift it just 1" above ground that would make the total distance 2" + 1" = 3" and you would no longer hear it no matter how impressive the on ground test is. It is a different matter if you have a solid suspicion that in that particular spot a nugget might be. OK, then you might scrape the ground a bit; that I understand, but swinging left to right while making a forward progress walking with the coil on the ground? I don't thing I'll be doing that. BTW, there are no ATX coil covers available as yet.

Cheers

 

[jerrym1]

I'd like to add just one more thing. I myself would be interested in the test suggested by you. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand what you are on about and I would be impressed too! I just can imagine that had Warren done the test that way and with the coil hard on the ground, many viewers would probably scream "Yeah, but what happens when you lift the coil off the ground?!". You just can't please everyone.

Cheers

 

[Tye]

Hi Jerry,

What ever I learn from Warren etc., I will
pass on.. For sure!

I have a good feeling about it all....so wish you guys all the best down your way and will be keeping my ears to the ground.

Cheers Jerry,

Tye

 

[Fishers Ghost]

All I am saying is can it penetrate that ground to any significant degree?
It is of no concern whether the coil is 1 inch or a foot or whatever, off the ground when it hits a target, we simply need to know if the ATX will find a small nugg buried an inch or two in hot ground.

When we scrape a coil it is not usually in a sweeping normal scanning manner, it is when we search for a very weak signal from a small target that is near the surface where a short scrubbing action is often used in an attempt to localise the target before getting down on hands and worn out knees.

 

[jerrym1]

To test whether it can penetrate the ground to any significant degree, we would have to bury that particular 0.16 gram nugget to 2" depth you have previously suggested in that particular soil. I am referring to the test on the video that you criticize. NOW, it is already known to us from Bearcat's videos that a nugget of very much the same size can be detected sitting on TOP of iron rock at just about 2 inches with nothing but air in between. In the very best scenario (ground = air) we could only hope to detect the buried 0.16 gram it if we press the coil onto the ground. Even 1/2 " above ground we would hear nothing, since we have already exceeded the maximum 2" in free air capabilities. So it can't be tested in 2" depth at all.

My way of testing it and the way I am going to run the test it once I have received my ATX is as follows:

The known fact is that I can't exceed the nominal 2" free air possibilities between the coil and the nugget.

Thus, I shall bury the 0.12 nugget, which I have, to only 1" tightly packed iron ground, which I also have, and will try to hear it with the stock coil 1" above the test ground (1" + 1" = 2") or closer if it doesn't work. If it works, then I will re-bury the nugget to 1 1/2" depth and try again. Hopefully there will be no need to go as close to the ground with the coil as to actually touch the ground. This test would be (I think) pretty close to what you'd like to see. Am I right?

Your sentence "It is of no concern whether the coil is 1 inch or a foot or whatever" makes no sense to me, and frankly I don't understand the logic of it at all.

Why would it not be of any concern how far off the ground the coil is? Any further away than 1 inch and we won't detect anything. How else can we perform the test if it doesn't matter the coil is a foot away or whatever, as you put it. Mind you, I am still talking about the same 0.16 gram nugget. After reading that sentence I somehow have a feeling we're not on the same page.

 

[jerrym1]

Hi Tye,

Thanks for that. Any new info is appreciated!

Cheers

Jerry

 

[bearkat4160]

That is a good test Jerry and I have done it and it still picks up the .1+ gram nuggets still...

 

[bearkat4160]

The 3 oz report has to be bunk as I put a partially flattened 2 oz sinker in a 15 inch hole and buried it, and picked it up with the ATX and the GPX 5000.

Bearkat

 

[bearkat4160]

I put two layers of Gorilla tape on the botton of my ATX coils so they will still be in good shape when the coil covers are available - so I CAN drag the coil on the ground just to get maybe a bit more depth and less air between ground and coil.

 

[Fishers Ghost]

Sort of half on and half off the same page.
I often say what I mean but have no clue as to what I said.

Your test sounds fine.
When I said the coil height is of no consern I ment that if I detected a target, any target, with the coil some significant height off the ground and the signal was weak I would then lower the coil and try for a stronger signal. If the signal was still very weak then I might scrub the coil on the ground in an attempt to pinpoint the target. I would have already ground balanced the coil to very near ground level and being a PI like the Infinium or the ATX, any change in height of the coil above the ground will not cause a change in the threshold tone and so any small weak signal will become stronger when the coil is placed/scrubbed on the ground over the target..

If the signal is not penetrating the ground, due to mineralisation and is responding to surface targets only then any lowering of the coil towards the target will either cause a positive or negative response from the detector which would indicate that the detector is ground balanced to the surface minerals only and would therfore be unlikely to detect a buried target. (Not what we want from a good gold metal detector)

In ref to PI metal detectors from my own exp there is very little improvement in signal strength whether the coil is 3, 2, 1 inch or even lower towards the ground surface other than the natural increace in strength due to decreacing distance of the target from the coil. Having said that, it is also a natural technical trait of a pulse Induction metal detector to perform better with as little air space as possible between the coil and the ground, although I have not realy noticed this effect myself, Maybe it can be measured electronically rather than by the human ear?

 

[sawmill]

A solid 2 ounce piece of lead will give a lot stronger signal than a lot of much larger gold nuggets.
The 3 ounce nugget thing could very well be true. I personally watched a 4500 ML fail to pick up a
9 ounce nugget at 4 inches . It didn't see it until we scraped another 1/2 inch of rock away. The
nugget was sponge type,and the signal was just too weak . Some very large nuggets ,due to gold
content,and how it is formed give a very weak signal. I seen that same 4500 find other gold at very
deep depths,it wasn't the detectors fault ,it was just a wierd nugget.

Also most serious gold hunters scrub the ground ,and wear out lots of covers. In a known patch
scrubbing the ground ,and working small areas at a time is the only way to find anything. All the
easy gold that could be detected by swinging in the air has been long gone in most worked areas.

If you are serious about finding small gold,be prepared to wear out lots of skid plates,also bring a
rake. To be realistic do your tests scrubbing the ground,1/2 inch may be the difference in finding
gold or getting skunked.

 

[jerrym1]

Thanks for that confirmation Bearkat and also your input on the "3oz nugget"

 

[jerrym1]

The confusion occurred because you started talking IN GENERAL, while I was still talking IN PARTICULAR, referring to the 0.16 gram nugget test in Warren's video only That's OK.

Cheers

 

[bearkat4160]

Well said sawmill, good info.